supporters of the Bill accept that it would
have enormous consequences. One of the reasons why I oppose the Bill is
because of those increased public expenditure consequences. The Bill is
fundamentally regulatory and if it is to be enacted at all it is in order
for me to suggest that we should have more time to consider such matters.

12.45 pm

Mr. Alan Howarth (Stratford-on-Avon) : If my hon. Friend looks again
at clauses 8 and 10 and considers the amendments made in Committee he will
realise that no time limit is set for compliance with the Bill. The
relevant Secretary of State will have the discretion to determine how long
the time scale for implementation should be. Comparable legislation in
America allows public transport 20 years for implementation and here it
could be even longer. Does my hon. Friend accept that proponents of the
Bill are most anxious not to load unreasonable compliance costs on
businesses, employers and society ? In the light of the spirit of
reasonableness shown by supporters of the Bill, does he accept that it is
sensible for the House to complete consideration of the Bill today, so that
it can go to another place where, if constructive and helpful amendments
are tabled, I am sure that their lordships will be willing to consider them
? Would not that be a proper procedure ?

Mr. Leigh : My hon. Friend is an eloquent supporter of the Bill and
he is taking a perfectly honourable position. I understand his point of
view. He has said on several occasions that the cost compliance figures
suggested by the Government are exaggerated. He does not for one moment
accept that the Bill will cost the taxpayer anything like £17 billion.
I accept that there could be delays in implementing the Bill and that it
could be introduced gradually. I accept his point of view. Presumably, we
are not talking about a cost of £17 billion being imposed immediately
on the public purse. From reading the arguments and the various briefs
supplied to us by business organisations, however, I am convinced that,
although we may not arrive at £17 billion in the near future,
compliance costs would be enormous and would have serious implications for
business, especially small businesses.

I hope that the House will at least accept that I have been perfectly
honest in saying that I oppose the Bill. I accept that what I am doing
might not be very popular with disabled people--many people will not
understand what I am doing. Occasionally in this House, however, one has
the right to speak according to one's conscience and to what one believes
to be right for the nation, rather than always be influenced by what one
pressure group or a series of groups, however worthy, may propose.

Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe) : I am grateful to the
hon. Member for giving way. He has made his position clear. He has said
that it is not his intention to talk out this humane and extremely
important Bill. Is he prepared to contemplate with serenity the talking out
of the measure ? Is he prepared to contribute to a debate that may go on
too long ? Is he prepared to say now that he would like to see the Bill at
least go forward for further consideration to the House of Lords ?

Column 1080

It has been accepted that the hon.
Gentleman has acted with honour. He is in an extremely important position
because my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) has said that
we are prepared to accept his amendments--we are prepared to accept all the
amendments--so that the Bill can go forward. Will he accept briefly, if he
looks at the cost compliance assessment document, that it is badly dated ?
It refers, for example, to the disablement commission, which was altered in
Committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The right hon. Gentleman is making a
very long intervention. I hope that he will draw it to a close now.

Mr. Morris : I will do that. I am trying to correct an error of
fact. The hon. Gentleman may think that that document takes account of the
debates in Committee, but it does not.

Mr. Leigh : I can confirm that I do not intend to continue speaking
for more than a few minutes and therefore I do not intend to talk out the
Bill. I am simply doing what I am entitled to do, which is to speak to the
amendments.

I think I have dealt with amendment No. 11. I shall now deal with
amendments Nos. 49, 50 and 51, which are in my name. That group of
amendments would allow the Secretary of State more flexibility and a
greater variety of exemption procedures and especially extend the scope for
exemptions from the employment provisions of the Bill. The Secretary of
State is given a power to make exemptions to the regulation of provision of
goods, services and new constructions under part IV. That is reasonable and
allows for some of the different difficulties and circumstances that may
obstruct the attempt to implement the wide-ranging provisions of the
section. However, the scope for exemptions, as currently specified, seems
to me to be far too narrow and restrictive to allow for the full range of
circumstances that may arise.

There are no exemptions for the part of the Bill regulating employment.
That is an especially grave omission. An over-rigid Bill has much less
chance of successful implementation than one that retains flexibility. As I
did the previous time that we debated the Bill, I have moved a number of
amendments. If it is to become law, the Bill must be flexible. One of the
reasons why I oppose the Bill is that I believe it to be inflexible.
Especially with regard to employment and to the current state of the
recession, any flexibility that we can introduce would be worth while.

[See Official Report, 23 May 1994, col. 21.

For example, an employer might come under the force of the Bill tomorrow.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) says that the
purpose of the movers of the Bill is to bring it in gradually. However, as
I understand it, an employer might come under the force of the Bill
straight away. He might acknowledge, and agree to, his obligations to make
changes to his premises, but be unable to complete the changes for some
time, due to the size of his business. In that case, surely it is better to
allow an exemption period while the changes are made and keep the employer
within the law than to prosecute an employer who wishes to stay within the
spirit of the legislation.

Mr. Alan Howarth : Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the Bill
provides exactly what he is asking for ? The

Column 1081

principle that employers should be required
only to "make reasonable accommodation"--I quote from the terminology of
the Bill--and that there should be no imposition of undue hardship on
employers completely covers the worries that he, otherwise perfectly
reasonably, expresses. Therefore, will he accept that it would not be
appropriate to detain the House more than another moment or two on that
subject and that it would be in the interests of Parliament, as well as in
the interests of disabled people, that we should be enabled to reach a
conclusion in our consideration of the Bill today, so that hon. Members who
may have objections of principle, which they are fully entitled to express,
can have those objections tested, if necessary, at a vote ? It is not
acceptable that the Bill should simply be talked out and be frustrated for
lack of time.

Mr. Leigh : I shall not comment on the latter argument because I do
not believe that it is relevant to the amendment that I am discussing, but
if what my hon. Friend says is right, and the proposers of the Bill wish it
to be as flexible as possible, I believe that my amendments would improve
it.

Mr. Berry : That is precisely why I said many minutes ago that we
would accept the amendment. There is no point in further debate on the
matter, except to wreck the Bill.

Mr. Leigh : The amendments are narrow and that is why I intend to
finish speaking in about a minute, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to
do so. I have tabled the amendments, however, and I am perfectly entitled
to speak to them. The Minister is also entitled to speak about them, if he
feels it necessary to do so.

It is better to keep an employer within the law than to prosecute an
employer who wishes to stay within the spirit of legislation. The Bill
would be left rather inflexible and would not be put to its best use if it
allowed for exemptions solely for periods of time and did not allow for any
other circumstances.

The Secretary of State may wish to exempt an employer or service-provider
from the requirements of the Bill while the nature of his business premises
means that he is unable to carry out the alterations necessary--for
example, the building might have a preservation order. I could cite many
other examples, but I shall sit down now. I hope that the House will
recognise that the amendments are sensible and that if the Bill is to
become law, they would improve it.

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas
Scott) : Given the considerable controversy that surrounds the Bill and
the proceedings in the House on 6 May, I should preface my remarks on this
group of amendments with a clear and unambiguous statement.

The Government have, and have always had, reservations about the Bill
promoted by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry). That comment is not
new ; I have said it on numerous occasions and I will explain exactly its
context before I consider the amendments. My introductory remarks will be
brief.

Mr. Berry : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that
we were dealing with the amendments now. Surely we should not have a
statement from the Minister about Government policy in general at this
stage.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I am grateful to the hon. Member and I
understand why he is taking such interest in

Column 1082

proceedings today, but I should be grateful
if he left it to me to make a judgment about what is in order and what is
not in order.

Mr. Scott : I have no intention of unduly prolonging my introductory
remarks, but they must be judged against a background in which my own
position has been under attack from the hon. Member for Kingswood and
others--not always, I may say, with the degree of accuracy that one would
expect.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Sit down then.

Mr. Scott : If the hon. Member would like to intervene, I am
perfectly willing to give way to him.

Mr. Skinner : I do not want to waste time, but if the right hon.
Member had any guts and had earned the title Minister for Disabled People,
he would give a welcome to the Bill. He would sit down and let us get on
and finish the proceedings for the benefit of those 6.5 million disabled
people. What he has been doing up to now is kicking their crutches away.
Come on, get on with it.

Mr. Scott : Despite the vulgarity of his language, the hon. Member
knows that in the six years in which I have been Minister for Disabled
People I have consistently endeavoured to improve the quality of life for
disabled people through a range of Government initiatives and support for
those voluntary organisations of and for disabled people, who play such an
important part in enabling that progress to be made. I have done that
consistently and I am determined to go on seeking to do it.

The Government themselves have made clear their intention to consult and to
act in five key areas that affect the quality of life of disabled people
and the obstacles that are placed before them in a number of important
areas. I want that work to continue. What I have never said is that the
Government support the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Kingswood.

Ms Liz Lynne (Rochdale) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I
was just wondering when the Minister might get on to talk about the
amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I shall soon get a little ratty if there are
any more points of order from hon. Members trying to decide what the Chair
shall do. The Chair will make that judgment.

Mr. Scott : The bottom line has always been that the Government
cannot accept the Bill because of the considerable cost implications
involved. That applies to this group of amendments as it does to others.
[Interruption.] If hon. Members will allow me to respond, albeit to
the sedentary intervention from the hon. Member

Mr. John Austin-Walker (Woolwich) rose

Mr. Scott : I will give way to the hon. Member in a moment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. It is not usual to respond to sedentary
interventions. As the right hon. Gentleman is now speaking to the
amendment, perhaps we may make progress with that.

Mr. Austin-Walker : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I
appreciate that the Government do not support

Column 1083

the Bill, but if that is the case, why did
neither the right hon. Gentleman nor any other member of the Government
vote against the Bill on Second Reading

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. After a degree of latitude was allowed
to hon. Members on both sides of the House, we have just started to debate
the amendment--so may we now stick to it ?

1 pm

Mr. Scott : In parenthesis--literally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in a
sentence--I have explained on a number of occasions precisely why, for
constructive reasons, we did not oppose the Bill on Second Reading and
allowed it to go into Committee

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. Back to the amendment, please.

Mr. Scott : As a point of order was raised, I thought that I should
seek--with your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker--to make the position clear.

The common theme of the amendments is the time scale for implementing the
Bill's provisions.

Mr. Berry : The Minister may not have heard me indicate that we are
prepared to accept the amendments. I hope that that is helpful and that we
may proceed as quickly as possible.

Mr. Scott : I am sure that that is the hon. Gentleman's hope, but in
the same way as we debated on Second Reading and in Committee, we must
discuss these amendments against the background of the need to carry
forward discussions about the obstacles that stand in the way of disabled
people in society and for Parliament to address them in due course. The
Government will of course take note of this debate, as they did of debates
on Second Reading and in Committee, as they develop their own proposals.
Before I gave way, I was saying that the common theme of the amendments is
the time scale for implementing the Bill's provisions.

Mr. Austin-Walker rose

Mr. Alfred Morris rose

Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr) rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker : To which right hon. or hon. Member is the
Minister giving way ? I call Mr. Rooker.

Mr. Rooker : I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is in a
difficult situation and I do not want to make it worse. Will he tell the
House and those outside whether the amendments form a tranche of any of
those that were drafted or examined in his Department ? If so, and as the
Minister's amendment has been accepted by the Bill's promoter, why are we
debating them ?

Mr. Scott : In the light of the trouble in which I found myself
after I was last asked such a question, I will let the hon. Gentleman know
the answer. I would have to look at the particular amendments. They may
reflect amendments that were moved earlier. I would not want to make any
commitment today that would get me into the sort of trouble in which I
found myself when I was trying to be helpful on a previous occasion.

Column 1084

Mr. Alfred Morris : All the world knows now that most of the
amendments were drafted by the Government. We accept them. The right hon.
Gentleman is speaking for the Government. Will he now allow us to proceed
with the rest of the amendments--one of which is a new amendment from the
Minister ?

Mr. Scott : I made it clear that the Government cannot accept the
Bill. I want to use the proper procedures of the House to explain the
Government's reservations about this particular group of amendments. It is
right that the House should have the opportunity to discuss them and

Mr. Scott : In just a moment, if I may just complete a sentence or
two.

The House should understand why we are resisting the amendments and why we
should consider them in some depth, whether or not some of them may be
acceptable. We need to discuss those matters today. That will better inform
our discussion of the future since, as I am making clear, the Government
cannot accept the Bill.

Mr. Dicks : By devious routes, the amendments are my right hon.
Friend's, the Department's or Government amendments. Why does he want to
tell us about amendments that he helped to get through to Back Benchers to
table ? There is an old rule about life, and it is a simple one--if you are
in a hole, stop digging.

Mr. Scott : What a number of my hon. Friends have done by moving the
amendments before the House is to express concern, particularly about the
speed with which the Bill would take effect, the costs that it would
impose, and the speed with which that cost could be imposed on businesses,
employers and shops. I take the point that is frequently made, and it is a
common point between the hon. Member for Kingswood and myself that the
concessions that he made in Committee did not, as he will recall, involve
me in moving amendments, but in making clear during discussions on the Bill
the Government's reservations that they placed the responsibility for the
timing into the hands of the Secretary of State. In other words

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : I think that the whole House
accepts what the Minister said about his own contribution to the disabled,
and we accept that, of course, Government matters put him in the hands of
the Treasury. But does he agree that the

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. We are on amendment No. 11.

Mr. Spearing : Does the Minister agree that amendments that were
referred to in the answer of the Leader of the House to my right hon.
Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) were drafted by
his Department and that, therefore, he is not overtly, but covertly
speaking against amendments that he has tabled ? What is the object of
doing that ?

Mr. Scott : I am not going to enter into that, for the reasons that
I explained earlier.

I am concerned to see that we have an opportunity this afternoon to explain
to a wider audience, as well as to the sponsors of the Bill, our concerns
about the speed with which the costs that will be inherent in the Bill, if
it reaches

Column 1085

the statute book in its present form, could
be placed on employers and providers of various facilities for disabled
people.

I believe that it is naive of the hon. Member for Kingswood to infer that,
because these matters have been placed under the authority of the various
Secretaries of State concerned, there would not, if the Bill reached the
statute book, be considerable and powerful pressure for the immediate
implementation of the various matters. That, in my view, would arouse the
expectations of disabled people, and would be very difficult for
Secretaries of State, perhaps of either party, who have to take into
account not just meeting the needs of disabled people, important though
that aim is, and one which I share, but the costs that might be borne by
the Government and, perhaps more importantly, by industry, commerce and
business. I believe, as I shall seek to explain if I am given the chance to
develop a coherent argument, that we need to take those people with us as
we develop policies that are designed in a constructive way to meet the
needs of disabled people in society. So I am nervous, despite the fact that
there is built-in flexibility about timing, and that power is given to
Secretaries of State, that, in passing the Bill in its present shape, the
speed and the pressure for immediate implementation would create
considerable problems for those in Government who have to take
responsibility for its implementation.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire) : I accept that my right
hon. Friend has concerns over the points that he made, but could not they
be dealt with in another place, were the Bill to be allowed to get to
another place ?

Mr. Scott : That is true, but, in my years in this House, I have
never thought it a proper principle that because there would be
opportunities for discussion in another place, the House should not give
proper consideration to proposals that are being placed before it, and
particularly since the House has a special responsibility for the public
purse, which does not in the same way

Mr. Spearing : Treasury again.

Mr. Scott : If I may say so, I made it very clear that it is a
proper concern of those who are responsible for public expenditure in this
country that we should not be placing undue burdens on the public purse or
on businesses, which are the engine of economic success.

Mr. Berry : The Minister kindly acknowledged that in Committee I
moved that the Secretary of State, subject to parliamentary approval,
should determine the time scale for introducing each of the measures.
Therefore, the cost implications would be entirely under the control of the
Secretary of State. Will the Minister tell the House what else one could
have done to make the provisions acceptable ? The pressures that he
mentioned will exist whether or not the Bill reaches the statute book. I
repeat that the costs will be under the control of the Secretary of State,
which is why we accept the amendments.

Mr. Scott : I have to tread a narrow path and address the
amendments, while setting them against the background of the pressures that
could exist in the areas affected by the amendments. The amendments
properly consider the time scale. To set at rest the minds of right hon.
and hon. Members who have intervened about the drafting of the amendments,
I can say that all the amendments in the

Column 1086

group were drafted by Parliamentary
Counsel, as was amendment No. 64 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member
for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern).

I have another worry about the path on which we would be embarking were the
Bill to achieve Third Reading today and we sent it to another place. It is
a concern that I have expressed frequently in previous discussions--the
failure of the Bill's sponsors to consult the many sectors of the economy
that would be affected by the Bill's provisions. It is important that those
sectors of the economy have an opportunity, before the legislation reaches
the statute book, to express their concerns, not just about the totality of
the cost, but about the speed of impact of the costs that might be placed
on them.

Mr. Alfred Morris : Never was an accepted amendment parried at such
length from the Treasury Bench. Does the Minister recall the money
resolution, tabled by Treasury Ministers in support of the Bill ? That
underwrites the cost. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr.
Berry) said, the right hon. Gentleman has total control over dates and
expenditure.

Mr. Scott : The money resolution does not do that. It is a technical
device--in a non-pejorative sense--tabled to ensure that those parts of a
Bill that attract significant public expenditure are in order as the Bill
is discussed. That is not the implication that many people would draw from
the right hon. Gentleman's intervention. The money resolution was in no
sense underwriting all the public expenditure that might flow from the
Bill. That was why the Government were under considerable pressure--and had
a duty once the Bill had received Second Reading and before its Report
stage--to produce the compliance cost assessment that has been before the
House. That assessment is the assessment of the expenditure. As anyone who
has had dealings with legislation in the House knows, the money resolution
in no sense underwrites that. The money resolution simply makes it clear
that it would be in order for various matters in the different clauses of
the Bill to be discussed properly. As I was saying before I gave way to the
right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), I am concerned
about the lack of consultation with many sectors of the economy which would
be affected by the Bill's provisions. I expressed my disappointment to the
hon. Member for Kingswood that the Bill had returned in virtually the same
shape as it had appeared before the House more than a year ago in February
1993. The Government had previously expressed their concerns about the
practical implications, costs and potential for litigation. I had hoped
that, before the Bill came back to the House for consideration, there would
have been widespread consultation with those on whom its requirements would
fall and who are very properly concerned--a point highlighted by my hon.
Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West--about the costs and any wider
consequences that would flow to them.

1.15 pm

Mr. Sheerman : I do not want to delay the proceedings, but the
Minister is going a little wide of the amendments and taking a long time.
He will

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman has only just come
into the Chamber and is accusing the Chair

Column 1087

of not restraining hon. Members'
contributions. I suggest that he listens to the full debate before making
such accusations.

Mr. Sheerman : I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for being absent
from the Chamber for a short time and for any disrespect to the Chair. I
wanted to intervene on the Minister because he cannot get away with what he
is saying. He referred to a wholly spurious cost assessment which everyone
outside the Government knows to be laughable. He also said that there had
not been sufficient consultation or time. In his capacity as Minister with
responsibility for the disabled, he has for years said that he was
benevolently neutral about the Bill while he could have been encouraging
and helpful. The truth is that he did not think that this Bill would come
to fruition.

Mr. Scott : I do not want to repeat myself because it would be
tedious and almost certainly out of order to do so at length, but I must
say that the Government have made their position clear a number of times,
most particularly when I wrote on 17 January this year to every hon. Member
to express my reservations about comprehensive legislation in this area. I
said that the Government believed that the best way forward was through
education, persuasion, the raising of awareness in society as a whole and,
where necessary, targeted legislation. I made it clear that I was opposed
to the sort of over-arching legislation that we are now discussing in this
part of the Bill. That was made abundantly clear by my right hon. Friend
the Prime Minister and by me on numerous occasions to hon. Members and to
the sponsor of the Bill.

The hon. Member for Kingswood knows my concern as well as I do. To be fair,
in Committee he acknowledged my concern about the lack of consultation that
had led many employers' organisations and others to express worries about
the costs and the rate of imposition of those costs on their members and
the interests that they represent. It is perfectly proper for those
organisations to have done so. They might not have expressed such
reservations or felt it necessary to make representations to a range of
hon. Members had the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues undertaken the
necessary consultation themselves as the Bill passed through its various
stages. I now know that, somewhat belatedly, they are doing so and are
arranging discussions with various employers' organisations and other
providers. The hon. Gentleman made it clear in our exchanges in Committee
that he rather regretted that he had not embarked on that process before.
Mr. Berry indicated dissent .

Mr. Scott : It would be worth the hon. Gentleman looking at the
record. If I have misrepresented him in any way I apologise, but he
acknowledged that it might have been better if the consultation process had
started rather earlier than it did.

Mr. Rooker : Like everyone else, the Minister realises that
parliamentary time is extremely valuable. His points might be halfway
valid, but, if the Bill could go to another place today having secured a
Third Reading and if it were to be amended in another place, it would not
be subject to the vagaries of private Members' legislation on a Friday. It
could be dealt with late at night during the week, possibly in the
overspill after the summer recess. That would

Column 1088

provide a possible four months for
consultation without damaging the Bill's prospects of receiving Royal
Assent. The Bill would not fall to be debated on a Friday--that is not the
procedure once it has left this place. The Minister is putting his
successors in an impossible position. He cannot say with sincerity that he
wants widespread consultation and detailed discussion about when particular
clauses will come into force if it appears that he has sought to kill the
Bill stone dead. I ask him not to do that.

Mr. Scott : I am nervous because of the constraints under which,
manifestly, I operate in terms of the rules of order. However, I want
briefly to refer to the approach that I announced when the Bill was
discussed at an earlier stage and which the Government have adopted. Within
the next six months or so, we intend to engage in a proper process of
consultation with a range of interests about proposals in a number of key
areas, which will address many of the concerns raised today by the promoter
and sponsors of the Bill. They need to be addressed

Mr. Sheerman rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. We must get back to amendment No. 11.
There will be a Third Reading debate at some stage during which the wider
points can be made. I should be grateful if we could get back specifically
to this group of amendments.

Mr. Sheerman : I had merely intended to give the Minister a chance
to read his note.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I hope that that point is relevant to the
amendments.

Mr. Scott : I am only reiterating what I have said before. There is
evidence, even in today's Financial Times , that concerns are being
expressed by the Confederation of British Industry

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I ask the Minister firmly to stick to
the amendments. When the House has finished its discussion on them, we can
put the question on them. We are discussing amendment No. 11.

Mr. Scott : I am certainly in accord with that aim. I do not want to
challenge your ruling in any way, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The amendments
concern the impact of costs, the speed with which the provisions of the
Bill could be implemented and the worry, which is being expressed even
today by the Institute of Directors and the CBI, about those pressures. The
amendments have been tabled to address those matters and it is to those
amendments that my remarks are directed. With my normal generosity in this
area, I am only too willing to enable those who feel that they have points
to make to put them to me and to respond to them to the best of my ability,
despite a somewhat unfortunate experience recently.

Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East) : My right hon. Friend has
made it clear that the Government are not prepared to accept the Bill. Some
people had hoped that when the Bill was discussed in Committee--I was not a
member of the Committee--it might have been amended in a way that made it
possible for the Government to accept it. Clearly, that was not the case,
so it is important that we now use whatever time we have available to learn
more about the way forward and about what the real objections are. The
compliance cost assessment came out only after the Bill had completed its
Committee stage. I have not

Column 1089

been here to debate it previously. It is
important that we use the time positively to explore what the Government's
objections are and to spell out more clearly what course could be followed
in future so that we can have a Bill that has the support of the Government
as well as the support of all those whose interests are being expressed so
clearly today.